There is reason to believe that Apple will do well at Android’s expense. The main reason is Verizon itself.
If Verizon was really pleased with Android offerings, it wouldn’t be seeking to negotiate concessions with Apple to carry the iPhone. Verizon isn’t at all acting like PC makers in the late 90s who found the Mac OS irrelevant; it’s acting like a big box retailer of the past decade that already carries cheap MP3 players but desperately wants to sell the iPod.
also
When adherents talk about Android’s market share, they forget that Android isn’t a product like Windows, it’s a technology portfolio. Android’s popularity doesn’t benefit Google in the way that Windows made Microsoft extremely rich. Google gives Android away, and in some cases pays hardware makers to use it. Pointing out that lots of phones being sold use Android is like saying that a large number of smartphones are black. So what?
Also I belive you are fooling yourself if you really belive Android is open. It isn't open at all really. There have been plenty of articles as to why. Aslo you idea thethe app store will marginalkize apple is also erroneous because it is the main reason the IPhone, Ipod and Iphone are selling, no other vendor has a one stop shop where people can rely on the authenticity of the titles .
Google doesn't pay manufacturers to use Android. Where did you hear that, or did it just come to you as you were typing? They also get paid for the apps by manufacturers, such as Maps. They have an advertising model, and made over $2 billion on it from Android last year. They will make much more this year.
$60 billion in cash. They generated much more cash than I, or I think anyone thought. it means they could generate an average of $6 to $7 billion this year per quarter. What to do. What to do.
I read somewhere yesterday that they only earn around 1% interest on that cash, which some shareholders claim is a good reason for Apple to instead offer a dividend. I was curious why they can't get at least 3%.
There's nonsense, and then there's bloody nonsense. This is bloody nonsense.
To a certain point, the article makes sense; what goes up must come down, someday, sort of. The argument only makes sense in the very, very long run i.e. Death of Windows in a world full of iPads (Windows 1985 - 2015 or 2020 slow death).
People who believes in these tales are also historians or numbbuts who work in libraries, shouldn't be using Apple products or investing in Apple stocks.
Dr. Millmoss is right on, it's bloody horse shit at the moment.
Apple's halo is just kicking in!!! All cylinders are on fire!!!
Apple Death Knell #54: Apple: Short Term Winner, Long Term Loser
By Fabrice Grinda, Published in BusinessInsider
Relevant Quote:
Android, with its relative openness, seems to be playing the role Windows played for the Mac. [?] On the DOS, then Windows side, the constant competition between PC makers, processor makers, and software developers, while less elegant and functional at the beginning, given enough time led to a plethora of offerings and innovation that not only copied many of the Mac?s best features but extended them.[?] The combination of faster PCs with more software at lower prices eventually completely marginalized the Macintosh.
Steve Jobs seems to be repeating the same mistake all over again. The elegant integration between the iPhone, iTunes and the App Store is definitely a current source of comparative advantage. It is easier to offer a better user experience at the beginning when you limit the form factor and completely control the hardware and software. The iPhone 4 is clearly the best smartphone on the market. The apps in the Apple App Store are clearly the best apps on the market.
However, Apple?s insistence on having a single form factor, on being a premium player at a premium price point (to carriers at least), and its arbitrary decisions with regards to what apps make it in the App Store will eventually make Apple a niche player. Even if Apple keeps innovating and has the best phone on the market, it won?t matter.
Water vapor is invisible. If you can see it, it has condensed into (liquid) droplets. Think 'cloud'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I read somewhere yesterday that they only earn around 1% interest on that cash, which some shareholders claim is a good reason for Apple to instead offer a dividend. I was curious why they can't get at least 3%.
It would really be amazing if people would look for facts instead of just shooting off their mouths. From Apple's 10-K:
"The weighted average interest rate earned by the Company ␣ on its cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities was 0.75%, 1.43% and ␣ 3.44% during 2010, 2009 and 2008"
Their average over the past 3 years is just under 2%. Some of that is probably due to currency exchange (I doubt if they hold all their money in dollars) and money market fluctuations.
Still, I agree that they ought to be able to do better than that.
I read somewhere yesterday that they only earn around 1% interest on that cash, which some shareholders claim is a good reason for Apple to instead offer a dividend. I was curious why they can't get at least 3%.
They don't earn a lot. That's both good and bad. Good, because during the recession when most investments were down, Apple didn't lose anything. Bad, because when things are moving up, it doesn't gain anything. They've stated several times that their goal for their cash and investments is "preservation of capital". That's a very conservative investment strategy, but safe.
Honestly, I think that investers who don't like that strategy are not understanding what Apple has been about for the past eight years or so. You can't have everything. Apple is a growth company. Their growth has been explosive. Their stock price rise, even with economy related setbacks a couple of times, has also been explosive. If Apple's net wasn't so good; 21.5% last year, then we could properly complain. But that's very good for the type of company they are.
A dividend or cash giveback would be a bonus, but it's obviously not required.
(Unless I missed something) Other than rolled into both the iOS device and iTunes numbers, nowhere during the earnings call was there a discussion on Apple TV -- Apple's 4th leg. The officers and analysts talked about current and future projections and strategies on all other devices and services, but not Apple TV. No mention of current market penetration or of a push to new markets.
I read somewhere yesterday that they only earn around 1% interest on that cash, which some shareholders claim is a good reason for Apple to instead offer a dividend. I was curious why they can't get at least 3%.
Maybe that new technology Cook alluded to was a bank!
(Unless I missed something) Other than rolled into both the iOS device and iTunes numbers, nowhere during the earnings call was there a discussion on Apple TV -- Apple's 4th leg. The officers and analysts talked about current and future projections and strategies on all other devices and services, but not Apple TV. No mention of current market penetration or of a push to new markets.
Yup! Nothing at all from either side. Hard to understand. I was on three live blogs, and the call, and people were wondering the same thing. I can understand Apple not mentioning it for some reason, but I'm surprised the analysts, who are usually quick to pick up on something like that, didn't mention it. They have in the past.
Google doesn't pay manufacturers to use Android. Where did you hear that, or did it just come to you as you were typing? They also get paid for the apps by manufacturers, such as Maps. They have an advertising model, and made over $2 billion on it from Android last year. They will make much more this year.
Where did you hear they don't pay manufactures?
Citing several sources familiar with the matter, PaidContent reports that Google signs ad revenue sharing deals with carriers, and sometimes manufacturers, who are willing to include Google applications like search, Gmail, and Google Maps. These applications are not a requirement for Android but apparently, Google is willing to handsomely compensate those who do included them.
PaidContent reports that though Google was already sharing application sales with carriers, these kinds of ad deals with the search giant were previously unheard of.
Google declined to comment, saying it could not discuss the terms of its agreements with partners and handset makers and carriers are also keeping quiet.
Are folks using the Ipod Touch with Skype perhaps, hmmm lemme see - YES, hmmm doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out.
In fact I'm using my old Iphone 3G WITHOUT an ATT plan and make calls from it using my internet connection at home over SKYPE app! there. It saves me $85 per month ! And when not at home I use a WiMAx!!!
The other way to do this is to use Google Voice. You can use the Talkatone app (Google Voice needs to be configured correctly in Google Chat) or a standalone SIP client if you have a Gizmo SIP account. I'm using Groundwire for the latter.
You can text using the Google Voice app. Total monthly cost: zero dollars. I have prepaid dumbphone when I'm walking around; I spend about 5-10 bucks a month on calls.
There is reason to believe that Apple will do well at Android?s expense. The main reason is Verizon itself.
If Verizon was really pleased with Android offerings, it wouldn?t be seeking to negotiate concessions with Apple to carry the iPhone. Verizon isn?t at all acting like PC makers in the late 90s who found the Mac OS irrelevant; it?s acting like a big box retailer of the past decade that already carries cheap MP3 players but desperately wants to sell the iPod.
also
When adherents talk about Android?s market share, they forget that Android isn?t a product like Windows, it?s a technology portfolio. Android?s popularity doesn?t benefit Google in the way that Windows made Microsoft extremely rich. Google gives Android away, and in some cases pays hardware makers to use it. Pointing out that lots of phones being sold use Android is like saying that a large number of smartphones are black. So what?
Also I believe you are fooling yourself if you really believe Android is open. It isn't open at all really. There have been plenty of articles as to why. Aslo you idea thethe app store will marginalkize apple is also erroneous because it is the main reason the IPhone, Ipod and Iphone are selling, no other vendor has a one stop shop where people can rely on the authenticity of the titles .
This is the thing most people do not understand about the Android platform from Google. They do not make money from the software itself, they tell developers they really do not want them selling the app to the end users they want them to give them away free and use advertising as means to make their money since Google will share ad revenues with the developers. Google does not care about the hardware manufactures kind of like MS and all the PC guys. Google is telling them here it is take or leave it since their model is about advertising. This is the reason Apple did what they did, which is to provide a standardized advertising model for developers which does not exist in Android. I have seen android apps, they have the advertising banner right in the middle of the app and other which force you through the advertising before you can even use the app. People are going to get feed up with this and stop using these apps and the developer will no longer support it on the few phone platforms they had time to debug on.
I think we were will see in the next 3 yrs is Android, Window Mobile and RIM will all share some portion of a declining market share and Apple will have the dominate position in the Mobile computing environment. I would also predict that Google may exist if the ad revenues are not where they think it is for the Android platform.
As long as people realize that Android is a mobile advertising vehicle for Google then you will understand their methods and why there are doing what they do. Google goal it to get as many people looking at ad originating from google that nothing else matters. The proof around this is the fact that there are so many Android phones which can not be upgrade to the latest version of the android OS. some hardware only support certain version and google does not care if you want the latest OS you need to upgrade you phone.
Citing several sources familiar with the matter, PaidContent reports that Google signs ad revenue sharing deals with carriers, and sometimes manufacturers, who are willing to include Google applications like search, Gmail, and Google Maps. These applications are not a requirement for Android but apparently, Google is willing to handsomely compensate those who do included them.
PaidContent reports that though Google was already sharing application sales with carriers, these kinds of ad deals with the search giant were previously unheard of.
Google declined to comment, saying it could not discuss the terms of its agreements with partners and handset makers and carriers are also keeping quiet.
I can't wait for the next BIG PRODUCT from Apple. It will be another "must have" device that I don't even realize that I must have it. Yeah, I'll buy it anway.
Citing several sources familiar with the matter, PaidContent reports that Google signs ad revenue sharing deals with carriers, and sometimes manufacturers, who are willing to include Google applications like search, Gmail, and Google Maps. These applications are not a requirement for Android but apparently, Google is willing to handsomely compensate those who do included them.
PaidContent reports that though Google was already sharing application sales with carriers, these kinds of ad deals with the search giant were previously unheard of.
Google declined to comment, saying it could not discuss the terms of its agreements with partners and handset makers and carriers are also keeping quiet.
If you are a cell phone carrier and you need an OS to compete with the iPhone would you really trust a software company to develop the OS for it. OR would you prefer to develop it yourself?
In an ideal world of course you would prefer to have it in house - you would then not be beholden to the software company. You would have complete control of the software and be able to customize it for you own phones and not be at the mercy of said software company.
It must be rather galling to be forced to use someone else's OS for your phones. And be completely at the mercy of their development timelines and strategic objectives. As long as that OS is kept up to date and adds new fetaures on time and make sense you should be okay but still!
and to top it off that software company is giving the OS away to your nasty rivals too jeez, But again you really should have seen the iOS coming shouldn't you and not have painted yourself in this tight corner in the first place. well thats what come from gettin' complacent! Innovate or die
(Unless I missed something) Other than rolled into both the iOS device and iTunes numbers, nowhere during the earnings call was there a discussion on Apple TV -- Apple's 4th leg. The officers and analysts talked about current and future projections and strategies on all other devices and services, but not Apple TV. No mention of current market penetration or of a push to new markets.
Apple still considers the device to be a "hobby."
They need the right content deals before this thing is going to take off. If they sold a million of them this past quarter, that's really $100M in revenue, which works out to 0.37% of total revenue, an insignificant amount.
By contrast, they sold 7.3 million iPads at an ASP of $630, giving $4.6B in revenue. That's significant.
They really need to sell ten times as many Apple TVs before the device has any relevance to the bottom line.
I read somewhere yesterday that they only earn around 1% interest on that cash, which some shareholders claim is a good reason for Apple to instead offer a dividend. I was curious why they can't get at least 3%.
Probably their best vehicle for short-term return is commercial paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
And save your Confederate money, the South will rise again!
I've been saving my Dixie cups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
They don't earn a lot. That's both good and bad. Good, because during the recession when most investments were down, Apple didn't lose anything. Bad, because when things are moving up, it doesn't gain anything. They've stated several times that their goal for their cash and investments is "preservation of capital". That's a very conservative investment strategy, but safe.
Honestly, I think that investers who don't like that strategy are not understanding what Apple has been about for the past eight years or so. You can't have everything. Apple is a growth company. Their growth has been explosive. Their stock price rise, even with economy related setbacks a couple of times, has also been explosive. If Apple's net wasn't so good; 21.5% last year, then we could properly complain. But that's very good for the type of company they are.
A dividend or cash giveback would be a bonus, but it's obviously not required.
So it turns out that Apple is more cautious about preserving their capital then, say, CitiBank. Why am I not comforted?
Yup! Nothing at all from either side. Hard to understand. I was on three live blogs, and the call, and people were wondering the same thing. I can understand Apple not mentioning it for some reason, but I'm surprised the analysts, who are usually quick to pick up on something like that, didn't mention it. They have in the past.
I'm not so good at media multitasking. My hands were full just listening to the audio.
Good to know that it wasn't just me. Maybe the analysts were still trying to digest the incredible numbers and processing where and how their projection models need adjustments.
With respect to the US market, I'd also wish they discussed the potential impact of US mobile carriers' data-cap and paid packet content prioritization. How will it change consumer behaviour? Does Apple need to enter into agreements with each carrier? What does the change between Google and Akamai mean for Apple streaming?
Comments
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/1...e-7/#more-4385
There is reason to believe that Apple will do well at Android’s expense. The main reason is Verizon itself.
If Verizon was really pleased with Android offerings, it wouldn’t be seeking to negotiate concessions with Apple to carry the iPhone. Verizon isn’t at all acting like PC makers in the late 90s who found the Mac OS irrelevant; it’s acting like a big box retailer of the past decade that already carries cheap MP3 players but desperately wants to sell the iPod.
also
When adherents talk about Android’s market share, they forget that Android isn’t a product like Windows, it’s a technology portfolio. Android’s popularity doesn’t benefit Google in the way that Windows made Microsoft extremely rich. Google gives Android away, and in some cases pays hardware makers to use it. Pointing out that lots of phones being sold use Android is like saying that a large number of smartphones are black. So what?
Also I belive you are fooling yourself if you really belive Android is open. It isn't open at all really. There have been plenty of articles as to why. Aslo you idea thethe app store will marginalkize apple is also erroneous because it is the main reason the IPhone, Ipod and Iphone are selling, no other vendor has a one stop shop where people can rely on the authenticity of the titles .
Google doesn't pay manufacturers to use Android. Where did you hear that, or did it just come to you as you were typing? They also get paid for the apps by manufacturers, such as Maps. They have an advertising model, and made over $2 billion on it from Android last year. They will make much more this year.
$60 billion in cash. They generated much more cash than I, or I think anyone thought. it means they could generate an average of $6 to $7 billion this year per quarter. What to do. What to do.
I read somewhere yesterday that they only earn around 1% interest on that cash, which some shareholders claim is a good reason for Apple to instead offer a dividend. I was curious why they can't get at least 3%.
There's nonsense, and then there's bloody nonsense. This is bloody nonsense.
To a certain point, the article makes sense; what goes up must come down, someday, sort of. The argument only makes sense in the very, very long run i.e. Death of Windows in a world full of iPads (Windows 1985 - 2015 or 2020 slow death).
People who believes in these tales are also historians or numbbuts who work in libraries, shouldn't be using Apple products or investing in Apple stocks.
Dr. Millmoss is right on, it's bloody horse shit at the moment.
Apple's halo is just kicking in!!! All cylinders are on fire!!!
Aug 27, 2010
Apple Death Knell #54: Apple: Short Term Winner, Long Term Loser
By Fabrice Grinda, Published in BusinessInsider
Relevant Quote:
Android, with its relative openness, seems to be playing the role Windows played for the Mac. [?] On the DOS, then Windows side, the constant competition between PC makers, processor makers, and software developers, while less elegant and functional at the beginning, given enough time led to a plethora of offerings and innovation that not only copied many of the Mac?s best features but extended them.[?] The combination of faster PCs with more software at lower prices eventually completely marginalized the Macintosh.
Steve Jobs seems to be repeating the same mistake all over again. The elegant integration between the iPhone, iTunes and the App Store is definitely a current source of comparative advantage. It is easier to offer a better user experience at the beginning when you limit the form factor and completely control the hardware and software. The iPhone 4 is clearly the best smartphone on the market. The apps in the Apple App Store are clearly the best apps on the market.
However, Apple?s insistence on having a single form factor, on being a premium player at a premium price point (to carriers at least), and its arbitrary decisions with regards to what apps make it in the App Store will eventually make Apple a niche player. Even if Apple keeps innovating and has the best phone on the market, it won?t matter.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/death_knell/
And save your Confederate money, the South will rise again!
Steam is water vapour which is visible.
No, it's not.
Water vapor is invisible. If you can see it, it has condensed into (liquid) droplets. Think 'cloud'.
I read somewhere yesterday that they only earn around 1% interest on that cash, which some shareholders claim is a good reason for Apple to instead offer a dividend. I was curious why they can't get at least 3%.
It would really be amazing if people would look for facts instead of just shooting off their mouths. From Apple's 10-K:
"The weighted average interest rate earned by the Company ␣ on its cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities was 0.75%, 1.43% and ␣ 3.44% during 2010, 2009 and 2008"
Their average over the past 3 years is just under 2%. Some of that is probably due to currency exchange (I doubt if they hold all their money in dollars) and money market fluctuations.
Still, I agree that they ought to be able to do better than that.
I read somewhere yesterday that they only earn around 1% interest on that cash, which some shareholders claim is a good reason for Apple to instead offer a dividend. I was curious why they can't get at least 3%.
They don't earn a lot. That's both good and bad. Good, because during the recession when most investments were down, Apple didn't lose anything. Bad, because when things are moving up, it doesn't gain anything. They've stated several times that their goal for their cash and investments is "preservation of capital". That's a very conservative investment strategy, but safe.
Honestly, I think that investers who don't like that strategy are not understanding what Apple has been about for the past eight years or so. You can't have everything. Apple is a growth company. Their growth has been explosive. Their stock price rise, even with economy related setbacks a couple of times, has also been explosive. If Apple's net wasn't so good; 21.5% last year, then we could properly complain. But that's very good for the type of company they are.
A dividend or cash giveback would be a bonus, but it's obviously not required.
I read somewhere yesterday that they only earn around 1% interest on that cash, which some shareholders claim is a good reason for Apple to instead offer a dividend. I was curious why they can't get at least 3%.
Maybe that new technology Cook alluded to was a bank!
(Unless I missed something) Other than rolled into both the iOS device and iTunes numbers, nowhere during the earnings call was there a discussion on Apple TV -- Apple's 4th leg. The officers and analysts talked about current and future projections and strategies on all other devices and services, but not Apple TV. No mention of current market penetration or of a push to new markets.
Yup! Nothing at all from either side. Hard to understand. I was on three live blogs, and the call, and people were wondering the same thing. I can understand Apple not mentioning it for some reason, but I'm surprised the analysts, who are usually quick to pick up on something like that, didn't mention it. They have in the past.
Google doesn't pay manufacturers to use Android. Where did you hear that, or did it just come to you as you were typing? They also get paid for the apps by manufacturers, such as Maps. They have an advertising model, and made over $2 billion on it from Android last year. They will make much more this year.
Where did you hear they don't pay manufactures?
Citing several sources familiar with the matter, PaidContent reports that Google signs ad revenue sharing deals with carriers, and sometimes manufacturers, who are willing to include Google applications like search, Gmail, and Google Maps. These applications are not a requirement for Android but apparently, Google is willing to handsomely compensate those who do included them.
PaidContent reports that though Google was already sharing application sales with carriers, these kinds of ad deals with the search giant were previously unheard of.
Google declined to comment, saying it could not discuss the terms of its agreements with partners and handset makers and carriers are also keeping quiet.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-a...-share-deals-/
ready to make an apology?
Are folks using the Ipod Touch with Skype perhaps, hmmm lemme see - YES, hmmm doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out.
In fact I'm using my old Iphone 3G WITHOUT an ATT plan and make calls from it using my internet connection at home over SKYPE app! there. It saves me $85 per month ! And when not at home I use a WiMAx!!!
The other way to do this is to use Google Voice. You can use the Talkatone app (Google Voice needs to be configured correctly in Google Chat) or a standalone SIP client if you have a Gizmo SIP account. I'm using Groundwire for the latter.
You can text using the Google Voice app. Total monthly cost: zero dollars. I have prepaid dumbphone when I'm walking around; I spend about 5-10 bucks a month on calls.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/1...e-7/#more-4385
There is reason to believe that Apple will do well at Android?s expense. The main reason is Verizon itself.
If Verizon was really pleased with Android offerings, it wouldn?t be seeking to negotiate concessions with Apple to carry the iPhone. Verizon isn?t at all acting like PC makers in the late 90s who found the Mac OS irrelevant; it?s acting like a big box retailer of the past decade that already carries cheap MP3 players but desperately wants to sell the iPod.
also
When adherents talk about Android?s market share, they forget that Android isn?t a product like Windows, it?s a technology portfolio. Android?s popularity doesn?t benefit Google in the way that Windows made Microsoft extremely rich. Google gives Android away, and in some cases pays hardware makers to use it. Pointing out that lots of phones being sold use Android is like saying that a large number of smartphones are black. So what?
Also I believe you are fooling yourself if you really believe Android is open. It isn't open at all really. There have been plenty of articles as to why. Aslo you idea thethe app store will marginalkize apple is also erroneous because it is the main reason the IPhone, Ipod and Iphone are selling, no other vendor has a one stop shop where people can rely on the authenticity of the titles .
This is the thing most people do not understand about the Android platform from Google. They do not make money from the software itself, they tell developers they really do not want them selling the app to the end users they want them to give them away free and use advertising as means to make their money since Google will share ad revenues with the developers. Google does not care about the hardware manufactures kind of like MS and all the PC guys. Google is telling them here it is take or leave it since their model is about advertising. This is the reason Apple did what they did, which is to provide a standardized advertising model for developers which does not exist in Android. I have seen android apps, they have the advertising banner right in the middle of the app and other which force you through the advertising before you can even use the app. People are going to get feed up with this and stop using these apps and the developer will no longer support it on the few phone platforms they had time to debug on.
I think we were will see in the next 3 yrs is Android, Window Mobile and RIM will all share some portion of a declining market share and Apple will have the dominate position in the Mobile computing environment. I would also predict that Google may exist if the ad revenues are not where they think it is for the Android platform.
As long as people realize that Android is a mobile advertising vehicle for Google then you will understand their methods and why there are doing what they do. Google goal it to get as many people looking at ad originating from google that nothing else matters. The proof around this is the fact that there are so many Android phones which can not be upgrade to the latest version of the android OS. some hardware only support certain version and google does not care if you want the latest OS you need to upgrade you phone.
Just to prove you wrong:
Citing several sources familiar with the matter, PaidContent reports that Google signs ad revenue sharing deals with carriers, and sometimes manufacturers, who are willing to include Google applications like search, Gmail, and Google Maps. These applications are not a requirement for Android but apparently, Google is willing to handsomely compensate those who do included them.
PaidContent reports that though Google was already sharing application sales with carriers, these kinds of ad deals with the search giant were previously unheard of.
Google declined to comment, saying it could not discuss the terms of its agreements with partners and handset makers and carriers are also keeping quiet.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-a...-share-deals-/
Ad revenue sharing is common. It's also possible that they are sharing some of the money MANUFACTURERS ARE PAYING them. See? You got it partly right.
There are a number of articles about this, but this one happens to be handy:
http://theunlockr.com/2009/09/26/the...e-vs-cyanogen/
Where did you hear they don't pay manufactures?
Citing several sources familiar with the matter, PaidContent reports that Google signs ad revenue sharing deals with carriers, and sometimes manufacturers, who are willing to include Google applications like search, Gmail, and Google Maps. These applications are not a requirement for Android but apparently, Google is willing to handsomely compensate those who do included them.
PaidContent reports that though Google was already sharing application sales with carriers, these kinds of ad deals with the search giant were previously unheard of.
Google declined to comment, saying it could not discuss the terms of its agreements with partners and handset makers and carriers are also keeping quiet.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-a...-share-deals-/
ready to make an apology?
The same tired article?
Do you guys have problems understanding these articles? It very clearly says this in the very beginning;
“We share revenue on search, not on mobile applications,”
So, who should apologize?
In an ideal world of course you would prefer to have it in house - you would then not be beholden to the software company. You would have complete control of the software and be able to customize it for you own phones and not be at the mercy of said software company.
It must be rather galling to be forced to use someone else's OS for your phones. And be completely at the mercy of their development timelines and strategic objectives. As long as that OS is kept up to date and adds new fetaures on time and make sense you should be okay but still!
and to top it off that software company is giving the OS away to your nasty rivals too jeez, But again you really should have seen the iOS coming shouldn't you and not have painted yourself in this tight corner in the first place. well thats what come from gettin' complacent! Innovate or die
(Unless I missed something) Other than rolled into both the iOS device and iTunes numbers, nowhere during the earnings call was there a discussion on Apple TV -- Apple's 4th leg. The officers and analysts talked about current and future projections and strategies on all other devices and services, but not Apple TV. No mention of current market penetration or of a push to new markets.
Apple still considers the device to be a "hobby."
They need the right content deals before this thing is going to take off. If they sold a million of them this past quarter, that's really $100M in revenue, which works out to 0.37% of total revenue, an insignificant amount.
By contrast, they sold 7.3 million iPads at an ASP of $630, giving $4.6B in revenue. That's significant.
They really need to sell ten times as many Apple TVs before the device has any relevance to the bottom line.
I read somewhere yesterday that they only earn around 1% interest on that cash, which some shareholders claim is a good reason for Apple to instead offer a dividend. I was curious why they can't get at least 3%.
Probably their best vehicle for short-term return is commercial paper.
And save your Confederate money, the South will rise again!
I've been saving my Dixie cups.
They don't earn a lot. That's both good and bad. Good, because during the recession when most investments were down, Apple didn't lose anything. Bad, because when things are moving up, it doesn't gain anything. They've stated several times that their goal for their cash and investments is "preservation of capital". That's a very conservative investment strategy, but safe.
Honestly, I think that investers who don't like that strategy are not understanding what Apple has been about for the past eight years or so. You can't have everything. Apple is a growth company. Their growth has been explosive. Their stock price rise, even with economy related setbacks a couple of times, has also been explosive. If Apple's net wasn't so good; 21.5% last year, then we could properly complain. But that's very good for the type of company they are.
A dividend or cash giveback would be a bonus, but it's obviously not required.
So it turns out that Apple is more cautious about preserving their capital then, say, CitiBank. Why am I not comforted?
I wonder what it feels like to have 60 billion in cash...
Feels pretty good actually. Taxes are a bitch though.
Yup! Nothing at all from either side. Hard to understand. I was on three live blogs, and the call, and people were wondering the same thing. I can understand Apple not mentioning it for some reason, but I'm surprised the analysts, who are usually quick to pick up on something like that, didn't mention it. They have in the past.
I'm not so good at media multitasking. My hands were full just listening to the audio.
Good to know that it wasn't just me. Maybe the analysts were still trying to digest the incredible numbers and processing where and how their projection models need adjustments.
With respect to the US market, I'd also wish they discussed the potential impact of US mobile carriers' data-cap and paid packet content prioritization. How will it change consumer behaviour? Does Apple need to enter into agreements with each carrier? What does the change between Google and Akamai mean for Apple streaming?